Senators Remove Their Own Statements From Report on Pre-War Iraq Intelligence


The Senate Intelligence Committee finally released it’s long-awaited/overdue report on their investigation into pre-war intelligence on Saddam’s Iraq.   This final report was supposed to look at statements made by government officials in the run up to war from 1991-2003.  It was supposed to examine the pre-war marketing or threat assessment and descriptions to the public about the intelligence regarding the threat posed by Saddam’s regime.  Instead, the report looked at just 5 Bush Administration speeches.  It completely left out any and all comments from Pres Bush Sr, Pres Clinton, anyone in his administration, and every member of the House and Senate over a twelve year period.  The Committee determined that nothing any of those people ever said was as important and moving to the American people as 5 speechifications from President Bush and his administration. 

In the minority’s “Additional Views” section of the report, we’re given a sampling of what comments the Democrat committee chose to remove from the report as insignificant.

• In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qa’idamembers. – Senator Hillary Clinton, Congressional Record, October 10, 2002.

• There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next 5 years. He could have it earlier ifhe is able to obtain fissile materials on the outside market, which is possible–difficult but possible. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress that Saddam Hussein has been able to make in the development of weapons of mass destruction. Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, Congressional Record, October 10,2002.

• Saddam Hussein is an evil man, a dictator who oppresses his people and flouts the mandate of the international community. While this behavior is reprehensible, it is Hussein’s vigorous pursuit of biological, chemicaland nuclear weapons, and his present and potential future support for terrorist acts and organizations, that make him a terrible danger to the people to the United States. Senator Charles Schumer, Congressional Record, October 10,2002

• There is no question that Iraq possesses biological and chemical weapons and that he seeks to acquire additional weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. That is not in debate. Senator Christopher Dodd, Congressional Record, October 9, 2002.

• We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal. Senator John Edwards, Congressional Record, October 10, 2002.

• Almost no one disagrees with these basic facts: that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a menace; that he has weapons of mass destruction and that he is doing everything in his power to get nuclear weapons; that he has supported terrorists; that he is a grave threat to the region, to vital allies like Israel, and to the United States; and that he is thwarting the will of the international community and undermining the United Nations’ credibility. Senator John Edwards, Congressional Record, October 10, 2002

The following statement from Senator John Kerry went a step further, claiming that “all U.S. intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons.” In fact, not “all” intelligence agencies assessed that Iraq was seeking nuclear weapons; as noted in the majority report, one agency considered the evidence inadequate to reach such a judgment.
• According to the CIA’s report, all U.S. intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons. There is little question that Saddam Hussein wants to develop nuclear weapons. The more difficult question to answer is when Iraq could actually achieve this goal. That depends on is its ability to acquire weapons grade fissile material. If Iraq could acquire this material from abroad, the CIA estimates that it could have a nuclear weapon within 1 year. Senator John Kerry, October 9,2002.

This comment from Senator Durbin, made nearly a year earlier, actually indicated that Saddam Hussein had “perhaps even nuclear weapons” at his disposal. At no time did the intelligence community assess that Iraq perhaps had nuclear weapons. • When you look at what Saddam Hussein has at his disposal, in terms of chemical, biological, and perhaps even nuclear weapons, we cannot ignore the threat that he poses to the region and the fact that he has fomented terrorism throughout his reign. Senator Dick Durbin, December 21, 2001, Larry King Live.

Why were none of these statements considered worthy of analysis by the majority’s review staff, particularly those made by Senators Durbin, Edwards, and Rockefeller, who were all members of the Senate Intelligence Committee at that time, and by Senator Clinton, who has publicly acknowledged being briefed on the NIE?

Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose real threats to America today, tomorrow. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East. He could make these weapons available to many terrorist groups, third parties, which have contact with his government. Those groups, in turn, could bring those weapons into the United States and unleash a devastating attack against our citizens. I fear that greatly. Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, Congressional Record, October 10, 2002.

• In addition, Iraq is developing unmanned aerial vehicles UAVs, capable of delivering chemical and biologicalwarfare agents, which could threaten Iraq’s neighbors as well as American forces in the Persian Gulf. Senator John Kerry, Congressional Record, October 9,2002.

• I have come to the inescapable conclusion that the threat posed to America by Saddam’s weapons ofmassdestruction is so serious that despite the risks and we should not minimize the risks we must authorize the President to take the necessary steps to dealwith that threat. There has been some debate over how “imminent” a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. It is in the nature of these weapons that he has and the way they are targeted against civilian populations, that documented capability and demonstrated intent may be the only warning we get. To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can. Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, Congressional Record, October 10, 2002.

• Is [Saddam Hussein] a greater threat than he was in 1991? He surely is. There’s different ways oflaunchingscuds and all kinds that go faster, farther. There is no question on that. .. And if [our allies] are not there for us, does that mean in this debate, precedent-based, historically-based, that we sort of sit and take it, or are we going to end up basically being unilateral anyway because we cannot have our children smallpoxed. Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, Congressional Record, September 25, 2002.

• When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulfregion. Senator John Kerry, Congressional Record, October 9, 2002.

• I believe that Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi regime represents a clear threat to the United States, to our allies, to our interests around the world, and to the values of freedom and democracy we hold dear….Thousands ofterroristoperatives around the world would pay anything to get their hands on Saddam’s arsenal, and there is every possibility that he could turn his weapons over to these terrorists…we can hardly ignore the terrorist threat, and the serious danger that Saddam would allow his arsenalto be used in aid of terror. Senator John Edwards, Congressional Record, September 12, 2002.

• When I consider that Hussein could either use or give to terrorists weapons of mass destruction biological, chemical or nuclear and that he might just be mad enough to do it I find, after careful research, the answer to my question: we cannot afford to leave him alone over the next 5 or even 3 years. Senator Charles Schumer, Congressional Record, October 10,2002

• If you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He’s already demonstrated a willingness to use the weapons. He poison-gassed his own people. He used poison gas and other weapons ofmass destruction against his neighbors. This man has no compunction about killing lots and lots ofpeople. So this is a way to save lives and to save the stability and peace of a region of the world that is important to the peace and security of the entire world. Vice President AI Gore, Address to the Nation, December 16, 1998.

• Our strategic objective is to contain Saddam Hussein and curtail his ability to produce the most deadly weapons known to mankind-weapons that he has unleashed with chilling alacrity against his own people. Left unchecked, Saddam Hussein would in short order be in a position to threaten and blackmail our regional allies, our troops, and, indeed, our nation. Senator Joe Biden, Congressional Record, February 12, 1998.

• Saddam Hussein, with one nuclear weapon, would be far more dangerous than the Soviet Union with 20,000. The difference is, they would not use [their weapons]. They were not suicidal. He would. Senator Carl Levin, Congressional Record, October 9, 1998

• With the peace of the region and, and in fact, much of the world at risk, we cannot allow Iraq to continue its maneuvers designed to protect such a dangerous buildup of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, Congressional Record, December 16, 1998.

• It is not possible to overstate the ominous implications for the Middle East if Saddam were to develop and successfully militarize and deploy potent biological weapons. We can all imagine the consequences. Extremely small quantities of several known biological weapons have the capability to exterminate the entire population of cities the size of Tel Aviv or Jerusalem. These could be delivered by ballistic missile, but they also could be delivered by much more pedestrian means; aerosol applicators on commercial trucks easily could suffice. If Saddam were to develop and then deploy usable atomic weapons, the same holds true. Senator John Kerry, Congressional Record, November 9, 1997

This is only a sampling of the approximately 100 statements submitted by Republican Members of this Committee for review and which we repeatedly requested be included in the report as agreed previously by the Committee Members. This request was ignored by the majority during two iterations of comments on the report drafts and a motion to include such statements, offered by the Vice-Chairman at the Committee’s business meeting, was denied a hearing by the Chairman.

Yes, it’s true that Vice President Gore, Senator Clinton, Senator Biden, Senator Dodd, Senator Edwards, Senator Kerry, and others were Presidential contenders at the time, and all made thousands of speeches over the years advocating the removal of Saddam Hussein as well as declaring his regime a de facto enemy of the United States.  However, the Senate Intelligence Committee ruled their comments as irrelevant.  No one ever listened to them as much as they did the five speeches from President Bush.  After all, he is easily the most eloquent, charismatic, believable, and convincing speaker of all.  OR could it there be some other reason Democrats removed their own statements from the report?

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

No one ever listened to them as much as they did the five speeches from President Bush. After all, he is easily the most eloquent, charismatic, believable, and convincing speaker of all.

I smell sarcasm.

When I was in high school, Orwell’s “1984” was required reading. At the time, I could not believe that any sane adult could possibly believe a governmental pronouncement one minute and then just as fervently believe an opposite pronouncement the very next minute, as if the inconsistency never existed. Sadly, I’ve come to see that I was terribly naïve in my youth. The fact that the majority political party in America today is successfully emulating Big Brother is frightening. The Democrat Party has sold its soul to the Left and like ALL leftist parties; it considers itself transcendent to all. Thus, it cannot admit to fallibility. Instead, the Party rewrites history confident that their media hacks and the larger population will never expend the mental or moral energy to recall and insist upon the truth.

What is most disturbing of all, however, is that conservative politicians are almost universally too cowardly to stand up to Democrat Party lies, distortions of history, hypocrisy and corruption. And conservative voters seem disinclined to insist that they do.

So Cal Jim — I think we are seeing that little red book to the right come to life in our lifetimes doubleplusungood, doubleplusnewspeak, doubleplus? Could texting be newspeak? no more metaphor=no more? anyway wiki has Libertarian Democrat now — never heard of that but I think we are seeing it — could it be that others liked Orwell’s world — Huxley Brave New World or Lord of the Flies rather than interpreting as we did?

Is it just me, or did post #3 make absolutely no sense?

Projecting 1984 as what the right wants? Did I read that correctly? “little red book to the right” seems to indicate that. If so, I would dissagree. “Animal Farm” was how the left gains power, “1984” showed how they kept power. These books had a lot to due with Orwell’s disillusionment (i.e. reality knocked) with communism and its sister, Fascism. Nothing Conservative exists in 1984 except the fact “Big brother” actively destroyed all conservative ideals in the book.

After President Bush leaves office, who will be lthe left’s new “Snowball” or “Goldberg”?

I’m seeing the texting as death of language therefore ability to reason which was goal of Ingsoc
Destroy the language and you have no words to…reason with? I’m thinking given what Libertarian Dem looks like in wikipedia is totalitarian or fascism? This would be the New Left? I have no idea who they are? They aren’t Democrats as I know them or ever have known them. The split in the party of late is evidence of that deep rift to me. Dem values are like McCain maybe. It is only young dems going for that marketing schema — they are face/book gen.

#6 didn’t make any sense, either…


So then the “Libertarian Dem”, by pure definition a contradiction, could also be coined “Neoleft” in a “newspeak” sort of way as “Neocon” was. Well, Stormfront and Black Bloq do march with the “anti-war” protesters and the WWP, so it could happen… Politics and power do make strange bedfellows. It could also be as you indicated, something entirely new and looking at the article on Wiki, I have to wonder how historical figures they mentioned fit into modern parties. I have to wonder if this party is a morph of the “Libertarian-Green” movement or others.

There is a growing rift in the Democrat Party as seen by the Hillary supporter’s clash with Obama’s supporters. It may cause the Democrat Party to move even farther left (Obama wins) or more centrist-left (Hillary wins). The Republican Party’s move left alienated its base and conservatives, yet the RNC could care it seems. I wonder how the DNC will reguard its Move-on/ANSWER/ACT/ACORN/WWP/ACP base? Looking at Howard Deans actions, I would say the DNC either will string their base along and expect them to vote out of “2 Minutes Hate” inspired BDS or loyalty while Democrat leaders do exactly what the 2006 Dem Congress did: nothing; OR they really will push for a hard socialism (INSOC or Lenin style) implementation on the US populance.

I do agree about the “destroy the language” aspect, which is why “political correctness” appauled me when I witnessed its formation. Outlaw words and one outlaws concepts. Outlaw concepts and one outlaws thoughts. Change words and concepts and the old concepts/root meaning of the words and ideas dissapear. What was accepted in the 1990s as truth becomes forgotten when a “conservative” (in quotes as President Bush and the current RNC are more moderate, not conservatives) takes charge. Ideas of personal rights AND responsibilites change, or go away.

I fully expect that an Obama administration, backed by the media, and with or without a supermajority in Congress, flip history again. The last 8 years would be nothing but failure, but the week after the innaguration, and all news would be positive. Flowers would bloom, terrorists would stop attacking us, the socialists in Europe would love the USA, only good news would be allowed out of Iraq and any bad news would now have a positive spin, false reports by the media (like fake IEDs, fake ‘civilians’ supposedly killed by Coalition forces, etc) would go away unless they served as a “snowball” target.

“He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future.” — George Orwell

I thought it was he who controls the spice, controls…

I’m afraid it’s the “he who” part everyone has wrong. Given the characters involved, it should be “he haw!” See if that doesn’t make everything fit just a little better.


I do not believe that is a Chicago political machine or Vermont elitist accent. But keep trying.